Planning proposals for heritage buildings to be re-written after outcry

Controversial planning proposals that would have put thousands of heritage buildings at risk are to be rewritten after they were exposed by The Sunday Telegraph.

By Andrew Gilligan

7:30AM GMT 15 Nov 2009

John Healey, the planning minister, said he would "redraft" new rules on historic buildings following an outcry over the original version.

The proposed regulations, known as Planning Policy Statement 15, will become national policy which all local councils must follow.

But they were attacked by the professional body representing town planners as "fundamentally flawed," "unfit for purpose" and a potential "charter for people who want to knock buildings down".

Mr Healey said: "To put it beyond doubt, there is no question of downgrading the protection of historic buildings. The current language in the planning policy statement is not clear enough. We will redraft it to make clear that the protection of heritage buildings will not be reduced."

In the draft, revealed by The Sunday Telegraph, the Government described the purpose of the new rules as being to "benefit developers" and to "reduce the number of applications for planning permission rejected on heritage-related grounds".

The proposed rules said that local authorities should allow the demolition or alteration of historic buildings where the "material harm" caused to an area's heritage was "outweighed by the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of the proposed development".

The rules were criticised in unusually strong terms by the Royal Town Planning Institute. Martin Willey, its president, said: "This could prove to be a charter for people who want to knock buildings down. It assumes that heritage stands in the way of development and economic recovery, which is patently untrue. Historic buildings and places are an asset, not a burden."

The Royal Institute of British Architects also attacked the policy.

Mr Healey said: "We have had over 500 responses to our consultation on this, more than usual. The consultation shows that there is some confusion, which we will clear up before we publish the final statement."

A spokesman for the RTPI said: "The redraft is extremely welcome news, though we will need to examine the final policy closely to make sure that it addresses our serious concerns."